Transforming an Oil Field Waste Disposal Facility into 300 Residential Units and an Ecological Prese

1
Transforming an Oil Field Waste Disposal Facility
into 300 Residential Units and an Ecological
Preserve-Integration of Endangered Species
Impacts with Remedial Processes and Deal
Structure to Align Interests

• Presented by Charles E. Robinson, P.E. of LFR
  Inc.
• GROWING COMMUNITIES ON KARST 2007
• September 12, 2007

2
Presentation Outline

• Background
• Brief History
• Development Challenges
• Previously Extinct- Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch
• EIR and Settlement Constraints
• Development Structure
• Complimentary Challenges and Solutions

3
Background

• Located in the City of Oxnard, CA
• Near Ocean- infill property
• 90-acre landfill used for oil field waste
  disposal (mostly drilling muds)
• Operated and Land-farmed from 1954 1982

4
North Shore Site Location
5
Site Location
6
North Shore - 1978
7
North Shore Pre-remediation
8
History

• Operational Disposal Facility 1954-1980
• Closed in 1981
• Sold by original land holder in early 1990s
• Early investigations found TPH, Ba, VOCs, PCBs-
  TPH dominated approach

9
History

• RWQCB approved RAP- 1996
• On-site treatment and disposal of waste material
• Clean-up levels to be finalized
• EIR Performed
• Remediation approved
• Discovery of Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch
• Complex Litigation and Negotiation
• Califonia Coastal Commission- Coastal Development
  Plan
• Development permitted to fund groundwater
  remediation

10
Ventura Marsh Milk-Vetch

• Last seen in 1983
• Listed as possibly extinct in 1993
• Found on the North Shore site in 1997
• Listed as an endangered species in 2001
• Scientific name Astragalus pycnostachyus var.
  lanosissimus

11
Ventura Marsh Milk-Vetch
12
Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch

• Endangered Status required consideration through
  State Agencies and Courts through EIR
• Negotiated mitigation
• UCSB funded to establish seed bank
• Off-site locations for Milk-Vetch Establishment
• Mitigation property
• Milk Vetch Preservation Area
• Resource Protection Area

13
Residential and Preserve Areas
14
Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch

• USFWS found at fault for Failure to Designate
  Critical Habitat
• Lack of knowledge forced assumed habitat
  designation
• USFWS designated entire Site as critical habitat
  to satisfy legal requirement

15
History Continued

• Project transferred to DTSC in 2004
• Risk orientation
• Residential land use
• RWQCB rejection of 96 RAP
• RI/FS/RAP completed in late 2005
• Consistent with RWQCB RAP
• Almost all affected material left on-site
• Remedial objectives defined
• Shift away from TPH focus to other
  chemicals-PCBs, VOCs, Dioxins, and Barium

16
Site Characterization/Remediation
17
Remedial Action

• Soil Consolidation- low transport potential for
  PCB, Dioxin, TPH, and metals- Title 27 (Landfill)
  exclusion for 5 to groundwater
• VOC Area
• High soils treated ex-situ SVE
• Low soils used as SCA cap
• Groundwater treatment
• NAPL excavation
• Resource Protection Area- restricted use- Similar
  Demands as Soil Consolidation Area

18
Post Remediation Cross Section
19
History Continued

• EPA- Toxic Substance Control Act
• PCB responsibility
• Initial approach to use pre-1978 exclusion
  rejected because of minor soil movement
• Risk based approach favored
• Review of DTSC/LFR RAP
• Change in approach from self-implemented to EPA
  discressionary review mandated ESA Section 7
  Consultation

20
History Continued

• EPA/US Fish and Wildlife Service- Endangered
  Species Act
• Only wild Ventura Marsh Milk Vetch population
• Prior designation of Critical Habitat named
  Primary Constituent Elements
• VM Milk-vetch requires 30 to water table and
  Site water table is 30 deep
• impermeable sludge saved Milk Vetch from
  extinction
• Evaluation of PCEs demonstrated no degradation of
  critical habitat
• Unique consideration of ESA and Remediation

21
Development Issues- Legal and Financial Tools
Employed

• Need to Provide Development Investors Certainty
• Remedial Uncertainty
• Geotechnical Considerations
• Liquefaction
• Differential Settlement
• Marketability
• Time for Completion
• Mitigation Complications

22
Guaranteed Site Solution Contract

• Aligns Interests of LFR and Development Goals
• Tiers of Incentives by Contract
• Time Consideration
• Downside and Upside Incentives
• Linkage with Insurance
• Forces Proactive/Thinking Project Management

23
Legal and Financial Tools

• Stop Loss Insurance on Remediation
• Based Upon Preliminary Agency Discussions and
  Original RWQCB RAP
• Based Upon Early Engineers Estimate with
  Contractor Input- agreed to evaluate post-RAP
  adoption
• Sub-limit for Mitigation Property

24
Changes From Inception

• Agency Change- RWQCB vs. DTSC
• Contaminant Emphasis Change
• Dioxins
• PCB- TSCA
• VOCs- DNAPL and high concentrations
• Higher volumes
• Vapor Concern of Agencies

25
Geotechnical Concerns
26
Remedial Action
27
Remediation
28
Status-

• Remediation nearly completed- October
• Geotechnical and Soil Treatment Costs Diminished
• Groundwater Costs Increased
• Contingency used 50- in line with budgets
• Substantially below SIR
• Time increased for both entitlement and remedial
  issues

29
Current Site Status
30
Conceptual Site with Homes
31
Solution?
32
Questions?